Can Republicans sell the old style pitch to the changing face of America? I don't think so.

Immigrants of today are less likely from Europe and are Latinos from S and C America and Asians and a smaller number from the Middle East. They come from places where they are used to government control. If they come here and government is their nanny they don't have a problem with that.They are happy for it.

What ever they do they have to face demographics and what appeals to the Evangelical Right is not the same although we have to find common shared values.

Rove is up there saying that Latinos tend to be social conservatives with family values and work ethic. Maybe, but most of the ones I know also want free health care, and big government social programs.

It is more than just salesmenship. You can say 5 + 1 instead of 3 + 3 but the answer is still 6.

Where Was the Ad?And there must be some excellent reason we didn’t see this from the McCain campaign, right? Right?

By Bill Whittle

Of the many — actually, it approaches infinite — missed Republican opportunities of this campaign season, I feel there is one so obvious I had to try to remedy it — personally.

It’s just a few hours until the polls open, but I wanted it out there just so I could say it was. Here you go.

My friends, I’m John McCain. Back in 2002, I fought hard to limit the amount of money in politics. I thought it was corrosive and anti-democratic. Public financing of campaigns has long been a Democratic rallying cry, and I crossed the aisle to work with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to pass legislation limiting the amount of money being pumped into campaigns. Nothing I have done has damaged me more with the base of my own party, but I thought it was the right thing to do, so I did it.

During the primaries, both Senator Obama and I agreed to make this campaign about issues and not about money, and I was proud and pleased when he joined me in a pledge to accept public financing for the general election.

However, back in June, Senator Obama renounced that pledge. Once it became clear that he could raise more money by breaking his promise – not just to me, and to America, but to the Democratic Party ideal they have fought for for so long – once he realized he could raise more money by breaking that promise, he broke it.

I did not.

So now, Senator Obama has raised over $600 million dollars. Because I remained committed to a principle we both agreed upon, he is able to outspend me at least seven to one. Remember that, next time you see an ad run by Senator Obama. Or the next one. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that.

And if that doesn’t bother you – at least a little – just ask yourself one question: What if Senator Obama, running on a platform of Change and “a new kind of politics” was the one to accept public financing, and the Republican opponent did not. What if the Democrat, true to his principles and a personal pledge, held true to his beliefs, while the Republican raised six hundred million dollars and turned off the standard credit card anti-fraud protections while doing so? What if the Republican outspent the democrat more than seven to one, and, as a result was up by a few points in key battlefield states.

What would you think then?

Would you not be inclined to say he “bought the election?” And do you think, in the face of that advantage, that anyone will ever accept public financing again?

And what if, in the face of that disadvantage, all you had to trust and depend on was the fundamental integrity of the press to present whatever damaging information they and their army of reporters could uncover, on either candidate?

What if they too failed to live up to their obligation to you? Then where would this principled stand leave you?

" My question, did McCain fight Republicans when they were right or did he fight them when they were wrong?

His biggest fights were: Campaign finance reform - a HORRIBLE law that led to his own demise. Opposing Bush tax cuts - wrong by his own admission. Opposing drilling in ANWR - political fodder, had nothing to do with the environment or the caribou and just conceded a huge symbolic point to the opposition. Immigration - caved on principle and lawfulness just to pander to a totally unappreciative audience. Supported cap and trade - don't get me started, the best explanation was Obama's saying he looked forward to bankrupting the clean coal industry and McCain did not and could not draw a distinction! My outlets are connected to coal and no one is building nuclear or anything else to replace it. McCain conceded the issue before the general election began. Torture - McCain has credibility here, but drew blurry lines impugning the Americans and hurting the war effort. Spending - I know he opposes earmarks, a minor item, but why didn't he scream bloody murder as Republicans poured more and more money into ALL spending. If he did I didn't hear it. And for all his fighting with his own party, he failed to pin blame for the subprime industry or any other else on his opponents. He's just too nice of a guy, so he let's Bush and the republicans take full blame with his silence. (Skipping over some things he did right - this is a rant)

"McCain fought Republicans hard but if he had won he helped in leaving fewer Republicans around to support him. Zero coattails even in losing. Of course a McCain presidency would also have been a failure with the Pelosi-Reid congress setting most of the agenda.

"One example I posted previously of McCain hurting Republicans was our other senator from MN, Amy Klobuchar, a political clone of Hillary without all the charisma. Every time her opponent tried to paint her as too liberal for MN she managed to point out that she had John McCain on her side of a vote or issue, opposing tax cuts, drilling, etc."

Six months to a year and the public will want the adults in charge again.

What a sad statement on your part. And how incredibly immature.

Had McCain won with 62% of the youth vote you'd be jumping for joy. The energy and enthusiasm that goes with this win carries beyond age, race, or party. I have NEVER seen people in the street, around the world, celebrating a presidential win. A win like this re-energizes the base, which in turn gets more people involved, which in turn means more people wanting to work for their country, state, and yes, even government. When is the last time THE WORLD was excited about a presidential win. My god man, that means that government actually want to talk to us again, do business with us again, actually like us again. And you want to complain? Please.

People were tired of the b.s., tired of the pessimism, tired of the same old same old. And they voted to do something about it. Do they know what is going to happen? No. But they are willing to take a chance on anything but the usual. The election results show that.

The Republicans blew it, and in the process quite possibly fractured their party beyond repair. They have a lot of work to do, and the usual negative attacks and rants aren't going to work anymore. McCain got his a** handed to him. By a black man. With a funny name. And not only are people o.k. with that, they are HAPPY about it.

The demographic breakdowns that are starting to come in from this election are showing that across the board EVERYONE wanted someone else to be in charge. Not just the "young and naive"

Deal with the loss. Don't be a sore loser.

Or to quote one of my best friends (and a staunch conservative) from both the 2000 and 2004 elections:

Six months to a year and the public will want the adults in charge again.

What a sad statement on your part. And how incredibly immature.

**Try hardnosed pragmatism.**

Had McCain won with 62% of the youth vote you'd be jumping for joy. The energy and enthusiasm that goes with this win carries beyond age, race, or party. I have NEVER seen people in the street, around the world, celebrating a presidential win.

**No one was happier than our enemies. I'm sure that there were cries of "Allah Akbar" in the caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and the remains of the AQ cells in Iraq.**

A win like this re-energizes the base, which in turn gets more people involved, which in turn means more people wanting to work for their country, state, and yes, even government. When is the last time THE WORLD was excited about a presidential win. My god man, that means that government actually want to talk to us again, do business with us again, actually like us again. And you want to complain? Please.**The ugly collision with reality will drain the delusion from the Obama Kool-aid drinkers.**

People were tired of the b.s., tired of the pessimism, tired of the same old same old. And they voted to do something about it. Do they know what is going to happen? No. But they are willing to take a chance on anything but the usual. The election results show that.

**Sure. Let's go with the novelty act. Government as a reality TV show. Let's vote the old warrior off and go with the charming, good looking guy. Qualifications be dammned.**

The Republicans blew it, and in the process quite possibly fractured their party beyond repair. They have a lot of work to do, and the usual negative attacks and rants aren't going to work anymore. McCain got his a** handed to him. By a black man. With a funny name. And not only are people o.k. with that, they are HAPPY about it.

**Like I said, we'll see in 6 months to a year how happy everyone is with this selection.**

The demographic breakdowns that are starting to come in from this election are showing that across the board EVERYONE wanted someone else to be in charge. Not just the "young and naive"

Deal with the loss. Don't be a sore loser.

**In the big picture, I could care less about the republican party. My concern is the future of this nation. We face a nuclear jihadist Iran because of Jimmy Carter's weakness. In the midst of a war for our survival, we go with the sleazy machine politician from Chicago with NO accomplishments to his record, aside from avoiding being held accountable for the ring of terrorists, bigots and America-hating leftists that make up his social circle.**

Or to quote one of my best friends (and a staunch conservative) from both the 2000 and 2004 elections:

YOU LOST, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON...

**We all lost. You just don't know it yet. Maybe I'm wrong. I guess I'll wait for 1/21/2009 to see the rainbows, unicorns and gumdrops as all the bad things disappear.**

JERUSALEM – The Hamas terrorist group believes the election of Sen. Barack Obama is an "historic victory" for the world and an opportunity to change U.S. foreign policy toward engagement with America's foes, Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' chief political adviser in the Gaza Strip, told WND in an exclusive interview today.

Yousef, speaking by cell phone from Gaza, said Hamas is drafting a letter of congratulation to be sent tomorrow directly to Obama. He said the current draft of the letter praises the president-elect as "another John F. Kennedy, or great Roosevelt."

"We want to be one of the first to congratulate him," Yousef said.

"This is an historic day, a turning point. I think this is the very first time in history that one country's election concerned everyone everywhere all over [the] world," said Yousef. "Everybody is looking forward to Obama's change, for a change in the U.S. policy, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian equation, which is the mother of all conflicts."

Yousef told WND he believes an Obama administration will be more willing to engage in dialogue with Hamas.

He said Obama's job will be to "restore America's dignity in the world and put an end to the wars in the region."

Yousef took the occasion to blast the policies of President Bush, commenting he hopes "that after January the Bush administration will not be heard from again."

"We are sick of wars and conflict," the Hamas official said.

Yousef seemed aware his comments and Hamas' expected letter to Obama may generate some negative publicity for Obama, but he said he feels it important to "reach out and to express our thoughts and engage."

"I praised him six months ago, some people tried to use that against him. But I knew he would win. Like everyone else, we expected this important victory," he said.

Yousef was referring to an interview he gave to WND and WABC Radio in April in which he praised Obama and then found his comments had fueled a firestorm of accusations in the presidential campaign.

In April, Yousef stated he hoped Obama would become president and compared the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy.

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election," Yousef told WND at the time.

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. ... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance," Yousef said.

Obama has condemned Hamas as a terrorist group that should be isolated until it recognizes Israel. He claimed McCain was using the Hamas comments as a "smear."

Hamas is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, rocket attacks, shootings and cross-border raids. Its official charter calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel. Just today, Hamas members took responsibility for launching dozens of rockets from Gaza aimed at Jewish civilian population centers.

To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail, or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.

I think nearly every country and political leader in the world has sent congratulations including but not only the Hamas. As for engaging in dialogueI believe even McCain two years ago was suggesting the same. From negotiation may come peace. Obviously current tactics aren't working. Maybe that is why Obama was elected by a landslide?

Regarding McCain and the Hamas:

Rubin has written an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post about his exchange with McCain, and The Huffington Post has obtained exclusive video. Here's the key excerpt:

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

I think the world hopes that Obama finds the solution so that people can have " security and a decent life and a decent future". I think and nearly everyone else in the world (including our allies) thinks that an open mind might find solutions.

LONDON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama won an extraordinary two-year struggle for the White House, beating Republican John McCain and becoming the first black president in U.S. history.

Following are quotes from world leaders:

YULIA TYMOSHENKO, UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER

"Your victory is an inspiration for us. That which appeared impossible has become possible."

FRANCO FRATTINI, ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER

"Europe which is celebrating (the victory of) Obama must know that Europe be will be called on to be a producer of security and no longer merely a consumer. I think Obama will rightly call on us to take our responsibilities more seriously."

CELSO AMORIM, BRAZILIAN FOREIGN MINISTER

"In this case hope has won over prejudice -- this is good for the United States and the world as a whole."

GRIGORY KARASIN, RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER

"The news we are receiving on the results of the American presidential election shows that everyone has the right to hope for a freshening of U.S. approaches to all the most complex issues, including foreign policy and therefore relations with the Russian Federation as well."

HOSHIYAR ZEBARI, IRAQI FOREIGN MINISTER

"I think you will hear a lot of discussion and goals and slogans during the election campaigns. When there is a reality check I think any U.S. president has to look very hard at the facts on the ground."**Translation: Please don't abandon us and our families to mass graves like previous democrats did to the Vietnamese.**

TZIPI LIVNI, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER

"Israel expects the close strategic cooperation with the new administration, president and Congress will continue along with the continued strengthening of the special and unshakeable special relationship between the two countries."**Translation: Please don't abandon us and our families to mass graves like previous democrats did to the Vietnamese.**

MOHAMED MAHDI AKEF, LEADER OF THE EGYPTIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, ONE OF THE LARGEST ISLAMIST GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

"We congratulate (Obama) on the confidence of the American people in him and we hope that he will change the policy of the United States toward the Middle East and toward the crimes which are happening in Afghanistan and Somalia, in other words that he adopts a just policy that restores to America its natural position of respect for humankind and democracy."**Allah Akbar! The kufir are weakening in their resolve and our jihad is winning!**

REV, FEDERICO LOMBARDI, POPE BENEDICT'S SPOKESMAN

"Believers are praying that God will enlighten him and help him in his great responsibility, which is enormous because of the global importance of the United States...We hope Obama can fulfil the expectations and hopes that many have in him."

YOUSAF RAZA GILANI, PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER

"Your election marks a new chapter in the remarkable history of the United States. For long, the ideas of democracy, liberty and freedom espoused by the United States has been a source of inspiration...I hope that under your dynamic leadership, the United States will continue to be a source of global peace and new ideas for humanity."

MANMOHAN SINGH, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER

"Your extraordinary journey to the White House will inspire people not only in your country but also around the world."

ALI AL-SADIG, SUDANESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN

"We don't expect any change through our previous experience with the Democrats ... When it comes to foreign policy there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."

JAN PETER BALKENENDE, DUTCH PRIME MINISTER

"The necessity for cooperation between Europe and the United States is bigger than ever. Only by close transatlantic cooperation can we face the world's challenges."

NICOLAS SARKOZY, FRENCH PRESIDENT

"With the world in turmoil and doubt, the American people, faithful to the values that have always defined America's identity, have expressed with force their faith in progress and the future. At a time when we must face huge challenges together, your election has raised enormous hope in France, in Europe and beyond."

HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT

"I applaud the American people for their great decision and I hope that this new administration in the United States of America, and the fact of the massive show of concern for human beings and lack of interest in race and color while electing the president, will go a long way in bringing the same values to the rest of world sooner or later."

GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER

"Barack Obama ran an inspirational campaign, energizing politics with his progressive values and his vision for the future. I know Barack Obama and we share many values. We both have determination to show that government can act to help people fairly through these difficult times facing the global economy."

MWAI KIBAKI, KENYAN PRESIDENT

"We the Kenyan people are immensely proud of your Kenyan roots. Your victory is not only an inspiration to millions of people all over the world, but it has special resonance with us here in Kenya."

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT

"We need to change the current crisis into a new opportunity. We need a new deal for a new world. I sincerely hope that with the leadership of President Obama, the United States of America will join forces with Europe to drive this new deal. For the benefit of our societies, for the benefit of the world."

HU JINTAO, CHINESE PRESIDENT

"The Chinese Government and I myself have always attached great importance to China-U.S. relations. In the new historic era, I look forward to working together with you to continuously strengthen dialogue and exchanges between our two countries."

"The world faces significant challenges at the start of your term. I am convinced that Europe and the United States will work closely and in a spirit of mutual trust together to confront new dangers and risks and will seize the opportunities presented by our global world."

TARO ASO, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

"The Japan-U.S. alliance is key to Japanese diplomacy and it is the foundation for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. With President-elect Obama, I will strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance further and work toward resolving global issues such as the world economy, terror and the environment."

KGALEMA MOTLANTHE, SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT

"Africa, which today stands proud of your achievements, can only but look forward to a fruitful working relationship with you both at a bilateral and multilateral levels in our endeavor to create a better world for all who live in it."

STEPHEN HARPER, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER

"I look forward to meeting with the President-elect so that we can continue to strengthen the special bond that exists between Canada and the United States."

KEVIN RUDD, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER

"Senator Obama's message of hope is not just for America's future, it is also a message of hope for the world as well. A world which is now in many respects fearful for its future."

HELEN CLARK, NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER

"Senator Obama will be taking office at a critical juncture. There are many pressing challenges facing the international community, including the global financial crisis and global warming. We look forward to working closely with President-elect Obama and his team to address these challenges."

SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO, INDONESIAN PRESIDENT

Indonesia especially hopes that the U.S., under new leadership, will stand in the front and take real action to overcome the global financial crisis, especially since the crisis was triggered by the financial conditions in the U.S."

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT

"We welcome his triumph in the same vein that we place the integrity of the US electoral process and the choices made by the American people in high regard. We likewise note the making of history with the election of Senator Obama as the first African-American president of the United States."

ALI AGHAMOHAMMADI, CLOSE AIDE TO IRAN'S MOST POWEFUL FIGURE

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI

"The president-elect has promised changes in policies. There is a capacity for the improvement of ties between America and Iran if Obama pursues his campaign promises, including not confronting other countries as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also concentrating on America's state matters and removing the American people's concerns."**Allah Akbar! The kufir are weakening in their resolve and our jihad is winning!**

SAEB EREKAT, AIDE TO PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS

"We hope the president-elect in the United States will stay the course and would continue the U.S. engagement in the peace process without delay. We hope the two-state vision would be transferred from a vision to a realistic track immediately."**Allah Akbar! The kufir are weakening in their resolve and our jihad is winning! Death to Israel!**

Ahhhh GM "YOU LOST, SUCK IT UP..." wasn't my quote, it was from another of your fans.

I have no problem with being told "You lost, suck it up". I have a problem with you, JDN. You lack any integrity. You smear and can't back it up. Let's compare that to SB_Mig, who can defend his points and debate honestly.

I agree fully that JDN has failed to back up his accusations of MM. IMHO the honorable thing to do would be to back them up or withdraw the accusations. That said, there is a personal tone to the attacks that is dissonant with the code here of speaking to each other as we would if were having a conversation over dinner.

This is out of line: "You are a perfect example of the dishonorable scum I despise. Maybe we'll meet in a dojo someday. We'll see how loud you bray then."

I agree fully that JDN has failed to back up his accusations of MM. IMHO the honorable thing to do would be to back them up or withdraw the accusations. That said, there is a personal tone to the attacks that is dissonant with the code here of speaking to each other as we would if were having a conversation over dinner.

This is out of line: "You are a perfect example of the dishonorable scum I despise. Maybe we'll meet in a dojo someday. We'll see how loud you bray then."

Bad dog.

Withdrawing these words would be appropriate.

Crafty, perhaps not to your and GM's satisfaction, I know you like MM, but I did point out MM's relation to DARE - a White Supremacy group.

Also, and perhaps more important to me (I have numerous Japanese friends and travel to Japan frequently) was her comment that rounding up Japanese/Americans was "wrong and abhorrent". I agree, but then subsequently (shock journalism) two years later she wrote a book defending their imprisonment. That's racist.

Hypocrisy. She is an anchor baby (fine with me). Her parents did not have a permanent VISA. Rather, they had a temporary VISA (legal), yet MM ridicules Koreans for example and others who are here ona similar and legal VISAs but also do not have a permanent residence VISA calling them all sorts of horrid names. Yet MM herself would not be eligible for citizenship anymore than they would yet she criticizes and focuses on minorities who have babies here and obtain citizenship just like MM did. That's hypocrisy in my book.

And finally, I did say the topic was boring to me. I politely said, "Let's move on". That is the same I would say at your dinner table. Further, I did try to move on and posted an article on health care onhealth care in America and universal health care in Canada. GM would not let up.

GM said, "You are a perfect example of the dishonorable scum I despise. Maybe we'll meet in a dojo someday. We'll see how loud you bray then."

I don't know about your dinner table, but at my table and at my friend's table the host would have demanded and apology from GM and/or asked him to leave. My friends would not tolerate GM's behavior.It's one thing to disagree; that is why were are here to discuss these items. But to make it "personal" and threatening is inappropriate in my opinion. Just my opinion...

IMHO he would not have even been noticed but for his being black, let alone being aided and abetted by a shameless and dishonest MSM.

There have been other black Presidential hopefuls, although BO was the first candidate that could be taken seriously. Initially yeah being black brought BO notoriety, but if he was like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton you still think he would have won? Hell no!

"but if he was like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton you still think he would have won? Hell no!"

Umm, , , as I see it, that is not the point. The comparison is not with obvious race baiting scum bag professional negroes like those two, the point is whether a glib white candidate with his de minimis qualifications and history of scuzzy associations (Frank Davis Marshal, Ayres & Dorn, the whacko preacher, ACORN, the CAIR connection to his getting into Harvard, not keeping track of the nationality of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations, etc, etc etc) would have gotten the same blind eye treatment and overwhelming support that BO did.

As someone who voted for McCain I actually agree with you 100%.The Republicans lost. As a "moderate" Republican I am deeply saddened but not surpirsed at the literally stubborn stupidy of talk radio including Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity neither of which speak for me anymore.

If the Republicans continue with the same losing messages they are doomed. Now their mantra is that W just didn't stay true to their roots, etc. and that is the cause for this huge party defeat.

What Goddam fools, and in total denial.

The reason we had "compassionate conservatism" in the first place was because Rove and others recognized that strict classic Reagonics is doomed and does not speak to the "growing" majority of this country who are simply not expanding their share of the pie like the wealthy have been. That *is* why BO won. End of story. Until the Right recognizes this and finds a way to deal with this they are doomed. Unfortunately, the party is held hostage by "strict" conservatives like those two talk show hosts I speak of.

Let them continue with their rants. They do sound more and more like just a bunch of bigoted out of touch and just rich white guys. I am saddened by this because I used to like Rush. Hannity is just a right wing political hack. While I more often then not agree with him he is just a talking points narrow minded guy. He doesn't speak for me. I still like Mark Levin and Bob Grant.

We need to support BO. He just may be a great President. I am sick of the party bickering. I hate the crats who did everything they could to destroy W the last several years. They spend more time playing their Goddam party politics for persona power than caring about the country. I have no illusions about what lying scum they are with this speak of "bipartisinship" and "reaching out" to Republicans they pretend they are going to do. We all know that is nonsense. Now they are in almost total power they speak of this. What crap. Yet I don't Repbuplicans to paly the opposite game. Lets get this country going. Rebublicans should just be patient and analyze what happens and plan for the future. Their time will come again, but only if they come up with real ideas for *change* that reaches everyone and people at their dinner tables can relate to as Rove states. I think Rove has it right.

We will see. But I am sicikened by some of the cans. Now the Far Right talk radio propagandists down moderates liike me. I am beggining to wonder if we need a new party without them.

"The reason we had "compassionate conservatism" in the first place was because Rove and others recognized that strict classic Reagonics is doomed and does not speak to the "growing" majority of this country who are simply not expanding their share of the pie like the wealthy have been."

Disagree. Bush 1 lost his re-election because he welched on his "Read my lips- no new taxes" and because Ross Perot allowed Slick Willie to win with 43% of the vote. Newt Gingrich did not take back the Congress for the Republicans by being a moderate-- he took it back with forthright Win-win Reaganism.

Bush went with "Compassionate Conservatism" because he lacked the chops to defend freedom-- probably because inside he knew he was a child of patrician privilege.

"That *is* why BO won. End of story. Until the Right recognizes this and finds a way to deal with this they are doomed. Unfortunately, the party is held hostage by "strict" conservatives like those two talk show hosts I speak of."

I haven't listened to Rush much recently, (too little content to time ratio, and at that time of day I am not in my car) and find Hannity to be an , , , anus. That said, what you say here would make sense only if McCain had run as a conservative!

Rebublicans should just be patient and analyze what happens and plan for the future. Their time will come again, but only if they come up with real ideas for *change* that reaches everyone and people at their dinner tables can relate to as Rove states.

Their time will come again, there is no doubt. Everything is cyclical. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they seem to have their work cut out for them.

1) Huge demographic shift - Youth and Latino vote pulled hard for Obama in this election. An energized youth (with or without direction) makes for a powerful voting block. Reagan was able to attract young voters, McCain blew them off. Huge mistake. If you can't energize the youth and pull them to your side, you lose a generations worth of votes. And the Latino vote is a huge prize for either party, due to what is bound to be exponential growth in the future.

2) Message? The question I heard from both conservatives and liberals in the last couple of weeks was "What can the Republicans do for me?" It seems that the McCain campaign was so busy trying to paint Obama as the bad guy, that they forgot to remind people what they stood for. How now do the Republicans refine/define their message. And to whom do they try to speak?

3) Direction... Where do the Republicans go from here? More moderate? It seems that many were wooed by what some conservatives (Bay Buchanan just this morning) are calling Obama's centrist message. Or do they go with the populist message of Sarah Palin (who is being thrown under the bus as I type this)? Several Republicans have made the point that the "Reagan Era" is dead. They say the movers within this movement are old, they can't inspire the youth, and they are out of touch. How do Republicans reconnect with a populace that has apparently abandoned their stance?

I think we are in for a very interesting next few years. A good friend of mine predicted the end of either party regardless of electoral outcome. I can see both parties fractionalizing as their various factions fight for a piece of the voting pie.

Crafty,I must disagree. Bush seniors approval ratings went from 90%+ofter desert storm to a lot less because he didn't speak to the recession going on while Clinton did. He just sat back at said a let the market take care of itself. Meanwhile his poll numbers sank while Clinton's rose. And to think Clinton who was a big underdog against a known entity with previously sky high approval ratings.

I don't follow your reasoning on McCain. I think if McCain had run as a stricter conservative he would have lost by even bigger margins. Romney would have gotten wiped all over the floor IMO.

I don't believe about these polls Hannity sites in *swing* states.For goodness sakes the entire Northeast as well as the WEst and expanding into the Southwest is turning die hard Democrat.

Some really interesting election maps including " cartograms " of the 2008 US presidential election results

<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/>

cartogram--- a map in which the sizes of states are rescaled according to their population. That is, states are drawn with size proportional not to their acreage but to the number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground. On such a map, for example, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants, would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million, even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island.

McCain's concession speech was his best speech ever in my opinion and very impressive. Why didn't he sound like the John McCain of 2000 months ago.

Juan William who was not an Obama supporter had some very touching commentary on Fox news.

McCain's concession speech was his best speech ever in my opinion and very impressive. Why didn't he sound like the John McCain of 2000 months ago.

I as everyone knows I was/am an Obama fan, BUT I too thought that was an outstanding speech. Who is this guy? I was truly impressed. He could/shouldhave won if he just talked like he did in this speech. He is not eloquent, but it was very personal and close to the heart. And very persuasive. Heck,after listening to him, I even wanted to vote for him. Why couldn't he show this side before?

Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.

It's also heartening to realize that as president Mr. Obama will soon be working hand-in-hand with a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard like Senator Robert Byrd to craft the incoherent and destructive programs that will plunge the American economy into a nightmare of full-blown sustained depression. As Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has repeatedly warned, there will be difficult times ahead and the programs will not always be popular, or even sane. But as we look out over the wreckage of bankrupt coal companies, nationalized banks, and hyperinflation, we can always look back with sustained pride on the great National Reconciliation of 2008. Call me an optimist, but I like to think when America's breadlines erupt into riots it will be because of our shared starvation, not the differences in our color.

It's obvious that this newfound pride is not confined to Americans alone. All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans.

So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.

Just to be clear I am absolutely thrilled about the idea of President-Elect Obama. I heard from some people who were in Grant Park that it was like 5 minutes of a perfect world. I don't think McCain could have won that election. It just could have been a much better election. McCain lost because no one really liked him. It is the same problem the Democrats had with Kerry. You can't replace something with nothing. ( someone who is not inspiring to the base it is not a comment on the value of John McCain)

Rachel: I disagree that loss was inevitable for McCain. I agree strongly that McCain failed to speak in positives-- indeed I think a large part of BO's appeal was and is his ability to speak in positives-- as vapid and internally incosistent as they may be. The American people were, and are, tired of the Hatfields and McCoy's routine out of the Patricians and Demogogues of Washington.

Interesting take from Krauthammer. He doesn't take the right's rebuke of McCain. Indded, because McCain tried to please the right wing ideologues by picking Palin he made a devastating choice.I thought Palin was a good pick but I was wrong. The lesson - you can't take someone who is not prepared and throw them inot a PResidential race at the last minute. BO was not experienced but he had years of preparation. Palin did well considering she was thrown into the fire. I am inclined to think BO may very well be great. It is the typical senerio wherein the opposition in their wishful thinking will underestimate their nemesis. And he will have the adoring MSM on his side to spin everything tohis favor.I can just hear it now - in four years - "Folks you need to re - elect me so we can finish the great work we have started".

From most though not all the right goes right back to its' pettiness, unwillingness to change or compromise.

****The Campaign Autopsy

By Charles Krauthammer

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 — caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) — although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.

In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system — a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.

This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.

After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partially nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver — Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth charges of socialism — became almost comical.

We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P 500 were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.

At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable.

However crushing the external events, McCain did make two significant unforced errors. His suspension of the campaign during the economic meltdown was a long shot that not only failed, it created the McCain-the-erratic meme that deeply undermined his huge advantage over Obama in perception of leadership.

The choice of Sarah Palin was also a mistake. I'm talking here about its political effects, not the sideshow psychodrama of feminist rage and elite loathing that had little to do with politics and everything to do with cultural prejudices, resentments and affectations.

Palin was a mistake (" near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It also changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience — and away from Obama's.

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent-party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters seeking the "change candidate" went 89 to 9 for Obama.

Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that too.

With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be — he should be — remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.****

At least five people were arrested across the city after Barack Obama's rally in Grant Park, including a woman who slapped a Chicago police officer, saying police couldn't arrest her anymore, prosecutors said today.Most of the others celebrated the historic occasion with gunfire.Celita Hart, 19, stood silently in court today when she appeared for a bond hearing.

Prosecutors said Hart, who is black, yelled " 'White [expletive], [expletive] McCain--you white police can't do nothing anymore.'" With that, she reached through the window of a squad car and slapped a white male officer in the face, according to Assistant State's Atty. Lorraine Scaduto.

The incident occurred after police responded to a crowd of people celebrating Obama's win on the corner of 69th Street and Western Avenue. Hart, of the 7100 block of South Rockwell Street, was charged with aggravated battery of a police officer and was ordered her held in lieu of $10,000 bail.

Others who appeared before Circuit Judge Israel Desierto included Andre Murph, 37, of Aurora, who was arrested after police saw him shooting a handgun into the ground on the Southwest Side.

Scaduto said he told the officers he was "shooting to celebrate Obama as president."

Narada Thomas, 23, of the 1200 North Central Avenue, allegedly gave a similar explanation after he was arrested with a handgun near his home. "He said he had the gun because he wanted to celebrate Obama becoming the first black president," Scaduto said.

Kenneth Smith, 24, of the 6700 block of South Ada Street, was arrested after he allegedly fired a handgun outside his home. Smith, who is on parole for a previous weapons conviction, told authorities that "the police only arrested him because a black man won for president," Scaduto said.

Robert Morgan, 54, of the 5700 South Lowe Avenue, appeared to have simply been caught up in the excitement.

When officers arrested him for allegedly firing a handgun into the air from his back porch, "He told the officers, 'Everyone else is shooting off their guns--I figured, why not?'" Scaduto said.

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and SOUAD MEKHENNETPublished: November 7, 2008DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.

The statement, which experts said was part of the psychological duel with the United States, was included in a 25-minute audiotaped speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization that claims ties to Al Qaeda. Mr. Baghdadi’s statement was posted on a password-protected Web site called Al Hesbah, used to disseminate information to Islamic radicals.

In his address, Mr. Baghdadi also said that the election of Mr. Obama — and the rejection of the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain — was a victory for his movement, a claim that has already begun to resonate among the radical faithful. In so doing Mr. Baghdadi highlighted the challenge the new president would face as he weighed how to remove troops from Iraq without also giving movements like Al Qaeda a powerful propaganda tool to use for recruiting.

“And the other truth that politicians are embarrassed to admit,” Mr. Baghdadi said, “is that their unjust war on the houses of Islam, with its heavy and successive losses and the continuous operations of exhaustion of your power and your economy, were the principal cause of the collapse of the economic giant.”

The audio statement came amid a very public discussion in the Middle East over what Mr. Obama’s election meant for the future — and what it said about the past. Most of the public reaction, in newspapers and on television and radio stations, was euphoric, with many commentators marveling at the election of a black man whose father was from a Muslim family. There was a general assessment that Mr. Obama’s election was a repudiation of the course taken by President Bush and his inner circle over the past eight years.

“Obama’s election was a message against such destruction, against unjustified wars, wars that are fought with ignorance and rashness, without knowledge of their arenas or the shape of their surroundings,” wrote Ghassan Charbel in Thursday’s issue of the Saudi-owned, pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Hayat. “It was a message against the pattern that became a burden on the U.S. and transformed the U.S. into a burden on the world.”

Some even pointed to Mr. Obama’s election as a lesson to the rest of the region. In Kuwait, Sheik Hamed al-Ali, an Islamic scholar known for his support of jihadi fighters, posted a message titled “We Want Change!” on his Web site.

Sheik Ali said, “It remains the obligation of our Islamic nation to benefit from this example and request change, also, and to get rid of any regime that leads with ignorance and injustice, plunders from the country, enslaves the worshipers, drives us to destruction.” The comments were then circulated on other Islamic Web forums.

But there was also a growing chorus of caution, as commentators began to try to tamp down expectations of any change in American policies in the region. And other commentators echoed Mr. Baghdadi’s view that the election was a victory for the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that we Arabs and Muslims were the main unseen voters who decided the outcome of these elections,” wrote Abdelbari Atwan in Wednesday’s issue of the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

He wrote, “The transformation that will begin in the U.S. starting today in various political, economic, military, and social domains may well have been delayed for decades, had the new American century been crowned with victory, and had the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan taken the directions sought by the neo-cons — in other words, had there been political stability and economic prosperity, and had the citizens of the two countries targeted by the U.S.’s designs been totally subjugated by it.”

Mr. Baghdadi also used his address to offer Mr. Obama an unlikely deal, one certain to do little to bring any resolution to the conflict between radical Islamic groups and the United States. He offered a truce of sorts in exchange for the removal of all forces from the region.

“On behalf of my brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Chechnya, I offer you what is better for you and us: you return to your previous era of neutrality, you withdraw your forces, and you return to your homes,” Mr. Baghdadi said. “You do not interfere in the affairs of our countries, directly or indirectly. We in turn will not prevent commerce with you, whether it is in oil or otherwise, but with fairness, not at a loss.”

Faris bin Hizam, an expert on Al Qaeda, said the offer of a trade relationship had struck a new note. “How can he call for establishing a relationship with the United States if it withdraws?” Mr. Bin Hizam said. “The main principle of Al Qaeda prohibits any relation with infidels.”

Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher and expert in radical Islamic groups, said that Al Qaeda leaders outside Iraq might balk at such a relationship, but that jihadis might view Mr. Obama’s election as an opportunity.

“Of course there is a shift, because there is a new president who came from an oppressed class, and people who had little opportunity,” Mr. Shehadeh said. “He wants to give Obama the chance to make a change, since Obama has no previous animosity with Islam.”

Intelligence officials working in the region said that they did not see Mr. Obama’s election as having any fundamental effect on Al Qaeda, and that any talk of a truce was likely to go nowhere. But two intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of their work said that they were concerned that any step that could be perceived as a victory for Al Qaeda, like pulling troops out of Iraq right away, would only strengthen its ability to recruit.

“If he withdraws the soldiers from Iraq before the country gets really stable, Al Qaeda will see it as their victory, and they might get stronger again,” one regional intelligence official said. That dynamic was already beginning to play out on Al Hesbah.

As with other Web sites, it is impossible for an outsider to verify the identity, or integrity, of posted comments. But experts recognize Al Hesbah as the one remaining online forum for those aligned with Al Qaeda, after two other Web sites were apparently hacked and taken offline.

On the same day Mr. Baghdadi posted his statement, others chatted about the need to continue the fight against the United States. “All of them are low and dirty, and their hatred of Islam is the same,” one participant wrote. Of Mr. Obama, he wrote, “Even in his speech rejoicing his victory he said, ‘To those who fight us, we will defeat you.’ Let us see who will be victorious.”

THE American people have spoken, and whatever our personal preferences, our duty as citizens is to support our next president. And he's going to need support: The international vultures are already circling.

Immediately upon his inauguration, President Obama will have to demonstrate to allies and enemies alike that he won't be a pushover. Justified or not, the international perception of Obama is that he'll be both passive and a pacifist.

He's going to have to show some Southside Chicago street grit. Fast.

Our enemies haven't wasted any time. The day after our election, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia, speaking for Vladimir Putin, gave a Gucci-loafer version of Premier Nikita Krushchev's shoe-heel-on-the-podium rant of a half-century ago.

In a direct challenge to our president-elect, Medvedev announced that Russia would deploy its latest-generation battlefield missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave between Lithuania and Poland. The Russian president made it clear that the target would be the US ballistic-missile interceptors to be based on Polish soil.

Medvedev's speech then elaborated on the Putin Doctrine: Russia will do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants in the territories that once belonged to the czars.

A day later, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran played good cop to the Russian bad cop, inviting the new US administration to enter direct talks with Tehran. Now, negotiations can be useful - but only when conducted from a position of strength. Unfortunately, the Iranians view our election results as reflecting a greatly weakened American will.

They assess Obama as the perfect patsy, a man who believes in his own powers of persuasion. Drawing out fruitless talks year after year has been Iran's primary technique to protect its pursuit of nukes. Persians are brilliant negotiators. Their position is always, "Well, we might sleep with you . . . next time . . . if you just give us one more present . . ."

And we rush off to Tiffany & Co.

Only the Chinese come close to the Iranian genius for castrating opponents under the negotiating table. Of course, our European allies show up already missing key parts.

By the end of last week, even the Iraqis had swooped down for a bite of roadkill. Brushing President Bush aside (as the Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans and others already have done), Iraqi representatives working on the status-of-forces agreement for our troop presence balked at the previously agreed terms, expecting a better deal from an Obama administration.

One key demand of radical Iraqis is the right to try our troops in Iraqi courts for alleged crimes. Given the present politicized state of the Iraqi legal system, accepting such terms would betray our soldiers.

As a candidate, Obama praised our troops. Will he stand up for them now? Or was his praise pure hypocrisy?

There's much more to come. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba have welcomed the election results, anticipating an American retreat from the fight for freedom. As president, it will be Obama's duty to disappoint them. China is facing a serious internal crisis, while terror-tormented Pakistan is broke and begging. A bumper crop of crises is sprouting on every side.

At home, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - a magnificent public servant - has tried to sound the warning that our nuclear arsenal, the ultimate backbone of our national security, has deteriorated badly and must be renewed (not expanded, just updated).

May we hope that the Obama administration, indebted to an extreme left-wing base, will have the audacity to do what is necessary and upgrade our nuclear weapons so that our deterrent remains dependable? The grim paradox of the last 60 years is that humankind's worst weapons were all that prevented another world war.

Today, with faith-drunk fanatics pursuing nukes and old adversaries resharpening their atomic swords, we had best remember that peace is only preserved through evident strength.

President Obama isn't going to enjoy a honeymoon with terrorists, rogue states or opportunistic vultures around the globe. He'll have to establish his leadership credentials immediately, to make it clear that he's America's president, not our liquidator-in-chief.

What could he do to help himself? Three things:

* First, make it clear to all that while America is willing to talk with serious counterparts, we'll expect results, not endless obfuscation.

* Second, beg Secretary Gates to stay on at the Pentagon for at least the first year of transition.

* Third, Obama should nominate that brilliant thug, Richard Holbrooke, as secretary of State. Holbrooke may be the most arrogant man ever to serve in our diplomatic corps (where arrogance has long substituted for competence). But he's also tough, superbly capable and the savviest star in the Democratic constellation when it comes to global affairs.

If Obama wants to project an idealist's image to the world, he's going to need a realist at Foggy Bottom. And someone's going to have to clean up Vice President Joe Biden's inevitable messes. The next four years are going to be interesting.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."

Milwaukee Puts a Vote-Fraud Cop Out of BusinessLocal Democrats don't take the issue seriously.

By JOHN FUNDLast week Mike Sandvick, head of the Milwaukee Police Department's five-man Special Investigative Unit, was told by superiors not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day. He was also told his unit -- which wrote the book on how fraud could subvert the vote in his hometown -- would be disbanded.

"We know what to look for," he told me, "and that scares some people." In disgust, Mr. Sandvick plans to retire. (A police spokeswoman claims the unit isn't being disbanded and that any changes to the unit "aren't significant.")

In February, Mr. Sandvick's unit released a 67-page report on what it called an "illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of (the 2004) election in the state of Wisconsin" -- a swing state whose last two presidential races were decided by less than 12,000 votes.

The report found that between 4,600 and 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.

Much of the problem resulted from Wisconsin's same-day voter law, which allows anyone to show up at the polls, register and then cast a ballot. ID requirements are minimal. If someone lacks any ID, he can vote so long as someone who lives in the same city vouches for him. The report found that in 2004 a total of 1,305 "same day" voters gave information that was declared "un-enterable" or invalid by election officials.

According to the report, this loophole was abused by many out-of-state workers for the John Kerry campaign. They had "other staff members who were registered voters vouch for them by corroborating their residency."

The investigative unit believed at least 16 workers from the Kerry campaign, and two allied get-out-the-vote groups, "committed felony crimes." But local prosecutors didn't pursue them in part because of a "lack of confidence" in the abysmal record-keeping of the city's Election Commission.

Pat Curley, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's chief of staff, told me he was very upset by the surprise release of the report. "I don't believe all of the facts are necessarily accurate," he said. Which ones? He only cited the report's interpretation of state policy on homeless voters. He denies the mayor's office had any role in disbanding the unit.

Mr. Sandvick says the problems his unit found in 2004 are "only the tip of the iceberg" of what could happen today. His unit has found out-of-state groups registering their temporary workers, a college dorm with 60 voters who aren't students, and what his unit believes are seven illegal absentee ballots.

"The time to stop voter fraud is prior to when the questionable ballot is mixed in with all the valid votes," he says. Former police captain Glenn Frankovis agrees: "This issue could be solved if [the police chief] would assign police officers to the polling locations as was customary about 20 years ago." But election monitors are now viewed as "intimidating" in minority precincts and have been withdrawn.

Mr. Sandvick's report concluded "the one thing that could eliminate a large percentage of the fraud" it found would be elimination of same-day voter registration (which is also in use in seven other states). It also suggested that voters present a photo ID at the polls, a requirement the U.S. Supreme Court declared constitutional this spring.

But weeks after the vote fraud report was released, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold introduced federal legislation to mandate same-day registration in every state. He claimed the system had worked well in Wisconsin and if "we can bring more people into the process, [it] only strengthens our democracy." Democrats tell me his bill is a top priority of the new Congress.

"They say voter fraud isn't a problem," notes Mr. Sandvick, "but after this election it may be all too clear it is." Now that Mr. Sandvick is resigning from the force after a long, honorable career, let's hope someone else is allowed to follow up on the spadework he's done.

This matter of vote fraud (notice how I have modified the name of the ACORN thread to the more all encompassing "Vote Fraud" is a profoundly important one. It is the nature of things at this moment that the friends of dishonesty will try to sweep this under the rug. I am hoping that our merry little band of truthseekers here will keep our eye on the ball and continue to share intel here on this issue.

The Obamas are a warm vision for the White House -- but he should strive toward full transparency. Plus: Yes, I still like Sarah Palin!By Camille Paglia

Nov. 12, 2008 |

Dazed and confused. A week after the election of Barack Obama, millions of American news junkies are in serious cold turkey, the big bump of withdrawal from two years of addiction to the dizzying ups and downs of a campaign that threatened never to end.

Eat dirt, you sour Clintons, who said Obama was "unelectable." Obama's 8 million vote margin over his Republican opponent -- miraculously sparing us endless litigation and chad counting -- was an exhilarating testimony to his personal gifts and power of persuasion. And the formidable Michelle Obama, with her electric combo of brains and style, is already rewriting first ladyhood. The warm partnership of the Obamas (wonderfully caught by the camera as they disappeared offstage after his victory) has set an inspiring standard for modern marriage.

Yes, it's true we know relatively little about Barack Obama, and his triumph is a roll of the dice. But John McCain (like Bob Dole) was a major Republican misfire -- a candidate of personal honor and heroic sacrifice who was woefully inadequate for the times. McCain's lurching grandstanding during the Wall Street crisis made him look like a ham actor on a bender. In debate, McCain was always pugnacious but too often bland or rambling, and he often missed glaring opportunities to score off Obama's vagueness or contradictions.

McCain's brusque treatment of his long-suffering wife, Cindy, was also off-putting -- nowhere more so than after his concession speech, when he barely remembered to give her a perfunctory hug. Probably no one is more relieved by McCain's defeat than Cindy, who seemed too frail and tightly wound for the demanding role of first lady. Now she can slip away once more into blessed privacy.

No one knows whether Obama will move to the center or veer hard left. Perhaps even he doesn't know. But I have great optimism about his political instincts and deftness. He wants to be president of all the people -- if that is possible in so divided a nation. His natural impulse seems to be toward reconciliation and concord. The big question will be how patient the Democratic left wing is in demanding drastic changes in social policy, particularly dicey with a teetering economy.

As I've watched Obama gracefully step up to podiums or move through crowds, I've been reminded not of basketball, with its feints and pivots, but of surfing, that art form of his native Hawaii. A photograph of Obama body surfing on vacation was widely publicized in August. But I'm talking about big-time competitive surfing, as in this stunning video tribute to the death-defying Laird Hamilton (who, like Obama, was raised fatherless in Hawaii). Obama's ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him seems to embody the breezy, sunny spirit of the American surfer.

In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don't need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don't like feeling gamed or played.

Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.

Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.

Pursuing the truth about Ayers, I recently rented the 2002 documentary "The Weather Underground," from Netflix. It was riveting. Although the film seems to waver between ominous exposé and blatant whitewash, the full extent of the group's bombing campaign is dramatically demonstrated. It's not for everyone: The film uses gratuitous cutaways of horrifying carnage, from the Vietnam War to the Manson murders (such as Sharon Tate's smiling corpse, bathed in blood). But the news footage of the Greenwich Village townhouse destroyed in 1970 by bomb-making gone wrong in the basement still has enormous impact. Standing in the chaotic street, actor Dustin Hoffman, who lived next door, seems like Everyman at the apocalypse.

Ayers comes off in the film as a vapid, slightly dopey, chronic juvenile with stunted powers of ethical reasoning. The real revelation is his wife, Bernardine Dohrn (who evidently worked at the same large Chicago law firm as Michelle Obama in the mid-1990s). Of course I had heard of Dohrn -- hers was one of the most notorious names of our baby-boom generation -- and I knew her black-and-white police mug shot. But I had never seen footage of her speaking or interacting with others. Well, it's pretty obvious who wears the pants in that family!

The mystery of Bernardine Dohrn: How could such a personable, attractive, well-educated young woman end up saying such things at a 1969 political rally as this (omitted in the film) about the Manson murders: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach. Wild!" And how could Dohrn have so ruthlessly pursued a decade-long crusade of hatred and terrorism against innocent American citizens and both private and public property?

"The Weather Underground" never searches for answers, but it does show Dohrn, then and now, as a poised, articulate woman of extremely high intelligence and surprising inwardness. The audio extra of her reading the collective's first public communiqué ("Revolutionary violence is the only way") is chilling. But the tumultuous footage of her 1980 surrender to federal authorities is a knockout. Mesmerized, I ran the clip six or seven times of her seated at a lawyer's table while reading her still defiant statement. The sober scene -- with Dohrn hyper-alert in a handsome turtleneck and tweedy jacket -- was tailor-made for Jane Fonda in her "Klute" period, androgynous shag. Only illegalities by federal investigators prevented Dohrn from being put away on ice for a long, long time.

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin's. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.

The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

Camille Paglia's column appears on the second Wednesday of each month. Every third column is devoted to reader letters. Please send questions for her next letters column to this mailbox. Your name and town will be published unless you request anonymity.

Thanks BBG for that post. I disagree slightly on the Ayers perspective. The attack on Obama regarding Ayers was bungled in my opinion because it put the focus on terrorism instead of politics. The implication became that maybe this Obama guy is secretly a terrorist too and that was a non-starter. Terrorism was a symptom that Ayer's political views were not within any mainstream-acceptable spectrum, not the goal. The questions should have been - what are Ayers political views and which of those does Barack Obama share? If Ayers view was to reintroduce inheritance taxes at 50% instead of 45%, then I doubt that he would be blowing things up to achieve it. But if his political view was to dismantle the free market based capitalist system as we know it then maybe he would want to blow things up. We know Obama never shared Ayer's explosive view of how to get there, the question was - what part of the end-of-capitalism ideal does he share? I don't the president-elect yet knows the answer to that.